Available online at www.sciencedirect.
com
ScienceDirect
Review
Risks and rewards in adolescent decision-making
Anna C. K. van Duijvenvoorde1,2, Jorien van Hoorn1,2,3 and
Neeltje E. Blankenstein1,2
Abstract
Adolescent decision-making has been characterized as risky,
and a heightened reward sensitivity may be one of the aspects
contributing to riskier choice-behavior. Previous studies have
targeted reward-sensitivity in adolescence and the neurobio-
logical mechanisms of reward processing in the adolescent
brain. In recent examples, researchers aim to disentangle the
contributions of risk- and reward-sensitivity to adolescent risk-
taking. Here, we discuss recent findings of adolescent’s risk
preferences and the associated neural mechanisms. We
highlight potential frameworks that target individual differences
in risk preferences in an effort to understand adolescent risk-
taking, and with an ultimate goal of leveraging undesirable
levels of risk taking.
Addresses
1
Leiden University, Dept of Developmental and Educational Psychol-
ogy, Wassenaarseweg 52, 2333 AK Leiden, the Netherlands
2
Leiden Institute for Brain and Cognition, Leiden, the Netherlands
3
Levvel, Academic Center for Child- and Adolescent Psychiatry,
Amsterdam, the Netherlands
Corresponding author: van Duijvenvoorde, Anna C.K (a.c.k.van.duij-
venvoorde@fsw.leidenuniv.nl)
Current Opinion in Psychology 2022, 48:101457
This review comes from a themed issue on Adolescent Development
(2022)
Edited by Lydia Krabbendam and Barbara Braams
For complete overview about the section, refer Adolescent Develop-
ment (2022)
Available online 8 August 2022
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2022.101457
2352-250X/© 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an
open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.
org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Keywords
Rewards, Risk taking, Adolescents, Individual differences, Social in-
fluence, Insula, Risk-return.
Introduction
Adolescence is a transitional life phase, marking the
change from childhood to adulthood. It is a period in life
known for changes in motivated, goal-directed behavior,
and is associated with a heightened sensitivity to rewards
and a greater tendency for risk taking. For instance, ad-
olescents and young adults take more daily-life risks
www.sciencedirect.com
than children and adults [1]. Adolescents also rate
themselves higher than children and adults on reward-
drive [2], sensation-seeking [3], and show a height-
ened neural response to rewards [2,4,5]. This height-
ened reward-sensitivity may serve as a differential
susceptibility marker that makes some adolescents more
sensitive to the environment than others [6]. For
instance, research found that adolescents with high
compared to low neural activation to rewards conformed
more to observed peer norms in both positive and
negative directions [7]. This emphasis on potential re-
wards (e.g., money, power, acceptance) may also lead to
risky decision-making by steering adolescents towards
the high-reward, high risk options. The strong focus on
studying adolescent reward-sensitivity, however, may
have limited a developmental perspective on how ado-
lescents process risk. Although correlated (and some-
times even conflated) with reward, risk preference is not
the same as reward-sensitivity. In this concise review, we
explore to what extent adolescent decision-making is
related to changes in risk preferences and what neural
mechanisms underlie adolescent risk-processing.
Measuring risk preference in adolescent risky
decision-making
Risk has been defined in various ways, ranging from psy-
chological definitions such as a potential danger or loss to
more economic definitions such as a higher variance in
outcomes [8]. The extent to which a person responds to
risk and/or chooses the riskier option in their environment
is called an individual’s risk preference, also referred to as
“risk attitude,” “risk tolerance” or “sensitivity to risk” [9].
Individual’s risk preferences have been related to real-
world consequences, such as misbehavior in school and
a lower likelihood to graduate [10], drug use, not wearing
a seat-belt, or financial insecurity [11e13].
The measurement of risk preference knows two tradi-
tions. First, risk preferences have been revealed by using
monetary lotteries in experimental studies examining
how people make decisions under risk. Typically, people
are asked to choose between options with explicitly
stated risks and rewards (e.g., (A) do you prefer 45 Euro
for sure, or (B) 100 dollar with a probability of .5?). A risk
neutral person would follow the objectively calculated
expected value when choosing between these options
(hence choose B). A risk-averse person may overweigh
the utility of the sure option over the riskier option (and
Current Opinion in Psychology 2022, 48:101457
2 Adolescent Development (2022)
hence choose A). Another way in which risk preferences
have been measured is by using stated preferences based
on self-reports. Numerous questionnaires exist for adult
and adolescent samples that also assess domain-
specificity of risk taking (e.g., social, financial, recrea-
tional, health-safety). Findings indicate that even a one-
shot question may result in reliable risk preferences
(e.g., “would you describe yourself as someone who tries
to avoid risks (risk-averse) or as someone who is willing
to take risks (risk-prone)?“) [12]. A recent study by Frey
et al. [14] showed that self-reports outperformed
behavioral risk-taking tasks in terms of reliability, retest-
stability and validity. Moreover, in a latent-modeling
approach a stable, “trait,” factor emerged from self-
reports that qualified as an overarching, domain-
general risk preference, as well as a series of factors
capturing (domain) specific aspects of risk preference.
These findings indicate the importance of measurement
when studying risk preference. In addition, they indi-
cate that individual’s risk preference comprises both
general and domain-specific dimensions.
Even if risk preference is a stable trait, it may still show
mean-level changes across development. Empirical evi-
dence from large world-wide longitudinal studies sug-
gest an increase in stated risk-seeking preferences in
adolescence and early adulthood [1,15], followed by a
decline across the adult lifespan [16,17]. However,
variations in developmental changes may occur across
different domains of risk taking (i.e., health-safety,
recreational, social, ethical, and/or financial domains)
[15,16]. Behavioral tasks have shown mixed findings
regarding age differences in revealed risk preferences,
with a meta-analysis showing a decrease in risk-seeking
preferences from adolescence to adulthood [18]. It has
been suggested that age differences in risk preferences
might be moderated by specific task characteristics,
including whether measures tap into learning, or
cognitive functions [18,19].Thus, although findings are
mixed depending on the measure used, risk preferences
seem subject to developmental fluctuations.
Adolescent risk preference in context
Risk preference may also show elements of state spec-
ificity. With states we refer to relatively changeable
variations around a person’s mean risk preferences that
may be associated with situational factors. One partic-
ular situation of interest to adolescence is a social
context. Adolescence is considered a key period for
social development with a social reorientation towards
peers, and a heightened sensitivity towards meeting
social needs [20e23]. Studies have included different
social contexts to examine the impact on adolescent
risky decision-making.
One particular context is social observation: in which a
peer, friend, or other observes the behavior of the
Current Opinion in Psychology 2022, 48:101457
adolescent. Research has shown that adolescents risk
preference increases when their choices are monitored
by a peer [24e27] (but see [28e30]), while the mere
presence of a peer was not sufficient to influence risky
choice [24]. The effect of social observation on risk
preference may be particularly salient in late adoles-
cence [25], although the findings of a recent study
suggests this particular developmental pattern is found
only in more affective decision-contexts [24].
A different context is when adolescents are confronted
with someone else’s behavior. Recent research on social
influence showed that when participants saw a previous
participant select the risky option, their risk preference
increased. A similar pattern, with risk preference
decreasing, was observed for the condition in which
participants saw a safe choice of a previous participant
[31e36]. Some studies suggest that risk-promoting
peers potentially have a larger influence [35], albeit
less so in late adolescents [36]. Others state that safe-
promoting peers weigh more heavily [33], and particu-
larly in late adolescents [36]. Paradigm-specific differ-
ences may lead to some of these mixed findings. For
instance, we may be more easily swayed by others if
their risk preference is not too far away from our own risk
preference. Clearly, the extent and conditions for
“state” changes in risk preferences need to be
further disentangled.
It has been suggested others influence our risk prefer-
ence by adding to the subjective value of the presented
options [33] and altering reward-related brain activation
[27,37]. Alternatively, an interesting perspective is that
adolescents may be more uncertain about their own
preferences than adults, and hence depend more on
what others do [38]. This resonates with studies
showing that uncertainty about others’ behavior in-
creases rapidly in adolescence [39]. A longitudinal
follow-up in this study [38], suggested that such a
heightened uncertainty related to a more positive
development of peer relations across adolescence.
Taken together, these findings suggest adolescent’s
social susceptibility may be an opportunity for promot-
ing positive behavior using peer influence and can be
potentially adaptive in terms of strengthening friend-
ships and relations [38,39]. These hypotheses will need
to be addressed in future studies.
Risks in the adolescent brain
Developmental neuroimaging work has studied the
functional neural correlates of rewards and risks, to gain
a better understanding of the neural correlates under-
lying adolescents’ risky decision-making (see Figure 1).
Typically, these studies link an individual-difference
measure, such as self-reports or indices of daily-life
risk taking, to neural activation during a risky decision-
making task. A large body of work shows that reward
www.sciencedirect.com

Figure 1
Overview of brain regions related to risk processing (blue): Posterior parietal cortex, anterior insula, medial prefrontal cortex (MPFC), ventral striatum
(VS), and amygdala (not shown in figure) have been related to risk processing. MPFC and VS additionally are related to reward processing (indicated with
dashed colors).
anticipation and receipt increased neural activity in the
ventral striatum and the medial prefrontal cortex (PFC),
which are projection targets of midbrain dopamine
neurons [40,41]. These findings raise the question of
whether this same circuit might process risk prefer-
ence [42].
In adults, past functional neuroimaging studies have
identified multiple brain regions associated with making
decisions involving risk [43,44]: The (posterior) parietal
cortex is thought to code probability [45] and its gray
matter density has been related to individual differ-
ences in risk preference [46,47]. The ventral striatum is
thought to reflect the potential of rewards for a giving
option and may promote an approach-tendency towards
risk. The (ventral) medial PFC integrates the (subjec-
tive) magnitude and probability of rewards for a risky
option and controls the tendency to avoid or approach
risks. For instance, functional connectivity of ventral
medial PFC and action-related brain regions has shown
to be higher in individuals with higher risk preferences
[48]. Finally, activity in the amygdala and anterior insula
would reflect the degree of risk and may promote risk-
avoidance [43,45,49]. A recent meta-analysis supports
these findings and highlights the insula as a crucial
component of risk anticipation and processing, involved
in coding known and unknown risks [44].
This key role of the insula is also confirmed in devel-
opmental studies of risk processing [50e52]. A study
tracking parametric changes in risk in a risky-choice
paradigm showed that adolescents versus children and
adults exhibited heightened anterior insular risk activity
to options of greater risk [53]. A larger developmental
study (N = 256) confirmed that anterior insula activa-
tion scaled with parametric changes in risk [54]. Thus,
risk-related brain regions typically found in adult
www.sciencedirect.com
Risks and Rewards van Duijvenvoorde et al. 3
studies, play a key role in developmental populations as
well. Several recent studies showed that risk-related
insula activation interacts with PFC regions and shuns
adolescents from health-risk behaviors [55e57]. These
findings indicate that risk engages brain regions that
arewell-connected to brain regions associated with
reward processing and valuation.
Opportunities for an individual difference perspective
in adolescent risk processing
Several recent perspectives call for the need to charac-
terizing individual differences in neurobiological devel-
opment and cognition [58]. Particularly, the mixed
findings of age-related changes in adolescent risk pref-
erences may indicate these preferences differ pro-
foundly between individuals [58,59]. One way to further
understand developmental and individual differences in
risk preferences is to use a model-based approach that
formalizes the decision process. Where utility-based
models present an integrated framework of value-
based decision making, one of the few models disen-
tangling the influence of risk and returns on risky
decision-making is a risk-return framework. Risk-return
models describe risky decision-making as a function of
three variables: (1) the perceived return of available
choice options (i.e., subjective expected value), (2) the
perceived riskiness of those options (i.e., subjective
outcome variability), and (3) the decision maker’s atti-
tude toward perceived riskdthat is, his or her willing-
ness to trade perceived risk for possible return [8,60].
One interesting suggestion from this body of work is
that differences in perceptions are more influential than
individual’s willingness to take risk [60e62]. For
instance, research on the COVID-19 pandemic showed
that adults’ risk perception (i.e., how risks are
perceived) and risk preference (how likely one is to take
risks) correlate positively to mitigation behaviors
Current Opinion in Psychology 2022, 48:101457
4 Adolescent Development (2022)

Figure 2

Conceptual overview of risk processing research across four levels of information, examined across development from childhood to adulthood. From left
to right, panel 1: Both revealed (e.g., experimental tasks and computational modeling) and stated (e.g., self-reports) measurements indicate an in-
dividual’s risk preference, ranging from risk aversion, to risk neutrality, to risk seeking. Panel 2: Social context impacts risk preferences. Peers can sway an
individual’s risk preference (via influence or monitoring) towards risk seeking or risk aversion. Panel 3: Latent clustering techniques can capture individual
differences and illustrate how individuals’ group together depending on their risk preferences in several domains. Panel 4: Neuroimaging research reveals
underlying mechanisms of risk processing. Although risks and rewards coincide, they may be related to distinct neural mechanisms that only partly
overlap and both influence choice behavior. These four levels of information can each be examined across different age groups or longitudinally, to inform
changes in risky choice across development. Note that these four levels of information are in no way exhaustive, and may be combined. For example,
preferences can be examined as a function of social context, clustering approaches may be applied to neuroimaging research, etc. Created with
BioRender.com.

concerning social distancing and hygiene [63]. Risk Conclusion

perceptions were, however, correlated with a larger
number of mitigation practices. Since risk perceptions
may also be more malleable than risk preferences, they
are potentially an interesting target for adolescent policy
and behavioral interventions.
An exciting approach to understand and quantify indi-
vidual differences in risky decision-making is by exam-
ining heterogeneity within groups. Latent clustering
approaches aim to find clusters of individuals that are
described on the basis of a risk profile, i.e. a type of
persons with a similar configuration of (multidimen-
sional) risk preferences. A large-scale population study
(N = 3123) used such a multidimensional cluster
approach on self-reported risk data [64]. Findings
showed four risk profiles that accounted for two thirds of
participant (i.e., the “cautious,” the “recreational ad-
venturers,” the “financial gamblers,” and the “dare-
devils”). These approaches were shown to be associated
with socio-demographic indicators, including age and
gender. These clustering techniques have the potential
to be extended to neuroimaging data (e.g. the studies by
Becht et al., van Duijvenvoorde et al. [65,66] and a
developmental longitudinal (i.e., latent change)
perspective [67]. Ultimately, such analysis technics may
foster greater specificity for certain groups of adoles-
cents regarding behavioral interventions.
Although reward-sensitivity is integral to adolescent
risky decision-making, we argue that a focus on risk
broadens the perspective on adolescent behavior (see
Figure 2). Here, we discuss recent findings on the
measurement of risk preferences, the (social) context-
specific influences on adolescents’ risk preferences,
and the associated brain regions involved in risk
processing. A promising avenue that emerges from the
work in this review is the potential to engage the social
sensitivity of adolescents to steer decision-making, and
the potential to embed models that target individual
differences in multidimensional risk profiles. These
renewed directions suggest that a perspective on risk
sensitivity, in addition to adolescent reward-sensitivity,
provide key insights to leverage undesirable levels of
risk taking in young people and improve adolescents’
health and wellbeing.
Author contributions
ACKvD: conceptualization, visualization, writing e
original draft, writing e review & editing; JvH, NB:
conceptualization, visualization, writing e review
& editing.
Conflict of interest statement
Nothing declared.

Current Opinion in Psychology 2022, 48:101457 www.sciencedirect.com


Data availability
No data was used for the research described in the
article.
Acknowledgments
A.C.K.D., J.H., N.B. were supported by a Sara van Dam Project Grant of the
Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences (KNAW WF/3197/
SD1704). A.C.K.D was supported by the interdisciplinary research program
‘Social Resilience and Security’ of Leiden University. The authors thank
Selin Topel for providing helpful feedback on the manuscript.
References
Papers of particular interest, published within the period of review,
have been highlighted as:
* of special interest
* * of outstanding interest
1. Duell N, Steinberg L, Icenogle G, Chein J, Chaudhary N, Di
* Giunta L, Dodge KA, Fanti KA, Lansford JE, Oburu P, Pastorelli C,
Skinner AT, Sorbring E, Tapanya S, Uribe Tirado LM,
Alampay LP, Al-Hassan SM, Takash HMS, Bacchini D, Chang L:
Age patterns in risk taking across the world. J Youth Adolesc
2018, 47:1052–1072, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-017-0752-y.
This exceptional paper takes a multidimensional approach to study risk
taking across various ages, cultures and areas of the world, finding
largely overlapping results across the globe.
2. Braams BR, van Duijvenvoorde ACK, Peper JS, Crone EA:
Longitudinal changes in adolescent risk-taking: a compre-
hensive study of neural responses to rewards, pubertal
development, and risk-taking behavior. J Neurosci 2015, 35:
7226–7238, https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.4764-14.2015.
3. Harden KP, Tucker-Drob EM: Individual differences in the
development of sensation seeking and impulsivity during
adolescence: further evidence for a dual systems model. Dev
Psychol 2011, 47:739–746, https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023279.
4. Schreuders E, Braams BR, Blankenstein NE, Peper JS,
Gürog lu B, Crone EA: Contributions of reward sensitivity to
ventral striatum activity across adolescence and early
adulthood. Child Dev 2018, 89:797–810, https://doi.org/10.1111/
cdev.13056.
5. Silverman MH, Jedd K, Luciana M: Neural networks involved in
adolescent reward processing: an activation likelihood esti-
mation meta-analysis of functional neuroimaging studies.
Neuroimage 2015, 122:427–439, https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.neuroimage.2015.07.083.
6. Crone EA, van Duijvenvoorde ACK: Multiple pathways of risk
taking in adolescence. Dev Rev 2021, 62, 100996, https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2021.100996.
7. Telzer EH, Jorgensen NA, Prinstein MJ, Lindquist KA: Neurobi-
ological sensitivity to social rewards and punishments
moderates link between peer norms and adolescent risk
taking. Child Dev 2021, 92:731–745, https://doi.org/10.1111/
cdev.13466.
8. Who takes risks when and why?: Determinants of risk taking -
bernd figner. Elke U. Weber; 2011. https://journals.sagepub.com/
doi/10.1177/0963721411415790.
9. Hertwig R, Erev I: The description–experience gap in risky
choice. Trends Cognit Sci 2009, 13:517–523, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.tics.2009.09.004.
10. Castillo M, Jordan JL, Petrie R: Children’s rationality, risk atti-
tudes and field behavior. Eur Econ Rev 2018, 102:62–81,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euroecorev.2017.12.002.
11. Caspi A, Houts RM, Belsky DW, Harrington H, Hogan S,
Ramrakha S, Poulton R, Moffitt TE: Childhood forecasting of a
small segment of the population with large economic burden.
Nat Human Behav 2016, 1:5, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-016-
0005.
12. Dohmen T, Falk A, Huffman D, Sunde U, Schupp J, Wagner GG:
Individual risk attitudes: measurement, determinants, and
www.sciencedirect.com
Risks and Rewards van Duijvenvoorde et al. 5
behavioral consequences. J Eur Econ Assoc 2011, 9:522–550,
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1542-4774.2011.01015.x.
13. Moffitt TE, Arseneault L, Belsky D, Dickson N, Hancox RJ,
Harrington H, Houts R, Poulton R, Roberts BW, Ross S,
Sears MR, Thomson WM, Caspi A: A gradient of childhood
self-control predicts health, wealth, and public safety. Proc
Natl Acad Sci USA 2011, 108:2693–2698, https://doi.org/
10.1073/pnas.1010076108.
14. Frey R, Pedroni A, Mata R, Rieskamp J, Hertwig R: Risk pref-
* * erence shares the psychometric structure of major psycho-
logical traits. Sci Adv 2017, 3, e1701381, https://doi.org/10.1126/
sciadv.1701381.
This influential paper examined the general and domain-specific struc-
ture of risk preference using latent modeling by using an impressively
large sample (N = 1507) with 39 different risk measures.
15. Blankenstein N, . van Hoorn J, Dekkers T, Popma A, Jansen B,
Weber EU, Pollak Y, Figner B, Crone E, Huizenga HM, van
Duijvenvoorde ACK: Risk taking, perceived risks, and perceived
benefits across adolescence: a domain-specific risk-return
approach. PsyArXiv; 2021, https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/
wv26z.
16. Josef AK, Richter D, Samanez-Larkin GR, Wagner GG,
Hertwig R, Mata R: Stability and change in risk-taking pro-
pensity across the adult life span. J Pers Soc Psychol 2016,
111:430–450, https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000090.
17. Mata R, Josef AK, Hertwig R: Propensity for risk taking across
the life span and around the globe. Psychol Sci 2016, 27:
231–243, https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797615617811.
18. Defoe IN, Dubas JS, Figner B, van Aken MAG: A meta-analysis
on age differences in risky decision making: adolescents
versus children and adults. Psychol Bull 2015, 141:48–84,
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0038088.
19. Andreoni J, Di Girolamo A, List J, Mackevicius C, Samek A: Risk
preferences of children and adolescents in relation to
gender, cognitive skills, soft skills, and executive functions.
J Econ Behav Organ 2020, 179:729, https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.jebo.2019.05.002. 472.
20. Crone EA, Dahl RE: Understanding adolescence as a period of
social–affective engagement and goal flexibility. Nat Rev
Neurosci 2012, 13:636–650, https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn3313.
21. Blakemore S-J, Mills KL: Is adolescence a sensitive period for
sociocultural processing? Annu Rev Psychol 2014, 65:
187–207, https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-010213-
115202.
22. Güroglu B: The power of friendship: the developmental sig-
nificance of friendships from a neuroscience perspective.
Child Dev. Perspect. 2022, 16:110–117, https://doi.org/10.1111/
cdep.12450.
23. Tomova L, Andrews JL, Blakemore S-J: The importance of
belonging and the avoidance of social risk taking in adoles-
cence. Dev Rev 2021, 61, 100981, https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.dr.2021.100981.
24. Somerville LH, Haddara N, Sasse SF, Skwara AC, Moran JM,
* Figner B: Dissecting “peer presence” and “decisions” to
deepen understanding of peer influence on adolescent risky
choice. Child Dev 2019, 90:2086–2103, https://doi.org/10.1111/
cdev.13081.
This elegant experimental study uses an ecologically valid paradigm
and computational modelling to disentangle the impact of peer pres-
ence and peer decisions on adolescents’ risky choice behavior.
25. Tymula A, Wang X: Increased risk-taking, not loss toler-
ance, drives adolescents’ propensity to choose risky
prospects more often under peer observation. J Econ
Behav Organ 2021, 188:439 – 457, https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.jebo.2021.05.030.
26. Smith AR, Chein J, Steinberg L: Peers increase adolescent risk
taking even when the probabilities of negative outcomes are
known. Dev Psychol 2014, 50:1564–1568, https://doi.org/
10.1037/a0035696.
27. Chein J, Albert D, O’Brien L, Uckert K, Steinberg L: Peers in-
crease adolescent risk taking by enhancing activity in the
Current Opinion in Psychology 2022, 48:101457
6 Adolescent Development (2022)
brain’s reward circuitry. Dev Sci 2011, 14, https://doi.org/
10.1111/j.1467-7687.2010.01035.x. F1–F10.
28. Tymula A: An experimental study of adolescent behavior
under peer observation: adolescents are more impatient and
inconsistent, not more risk-taking, when observed by peers.
J Econ Behav Organ 2019, 166:735–750, https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.jebo.2019.08.014.
29. Tymula A, Whitehair J: Young adults gamble less when
observed by peers. J Econ Psychol 2018, 68:1–15, https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.joep.2018.07.005.
30. Lorenz C, Kray J: Explore with me: peer observation de-
creases risk-taking but increases exploration tendencies
across adolescence. J Youth Adolesc 2022, https://doi.org/
10.1007/s10964-022-01608-2.
31. Blankenstein NE, Crone EA, van den Bos W, van
Duijvenvoorde ACK: Dealing with uncertainty: testing risk- and
ambiguity-attitude across adolescence. Dev Neuropsychol
2016, 41:77–92, https://doi.org/10.1080/
87565641.2016.1158265.
32. Braams BR, Davidow JY, Somerville LH: Information about
others’ choices selectively alters risk tolerance and medial
prefrontal cortex activation across adolescence and young
adulthood. Dev. Cogn. Neurosci. 2021, 52, 101039, https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.dcn.2021.101039.
33. Ciranka S, van den Bos W: Social influence in adolescent
decision-making: a formal framework. Front Psychol 2019, 10.
https://www.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01915.
34. Ciranka S, van den Bos W: Social norms in adolescent risk
engagement and recommendation. Br J Dev Psychol 2021, 39:
481–498, https://doi.org/10.1111/bjdp.12369.
35. Reiter AMF, Suzuki S, O’Doherty JP, Li S-C, Eppinger B: Risk
contagion by peers affects learning and decision-making in
adolescents. J Exp Psychol Gen 2019, 148:1494–1504, https://
doi.org/10.1037/xge0000512.
36. Braams BR, Davidow JY, Somerville LH: Developmental pat-
terns of change in the influence of safe and risky peer
choices on risky decision-making. Dev Sci 2019, 22, https://
doi.org/10.1111/desc.12717.
37. . van Hoorn J, Shablack H, Lindquist KA, Telzer EH: Incorpo-
rating the social context into neurocognitive models of
adolescent decision-making: a neuroimaging meta-analysis.
Neurosci Biobehav Rev 2019, 101:129–142, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.neubiorev.2018.12.024.
38. Reiter AMF, Moutoussis M, Vanes L, Kievit R, Bullmore ET,
Goodyer IM, Fonagy P, Jones PB, Dolan RJ: Preference un-
certainty accounts for developmental effects on susceptibil-
ity to peer influence in adolescence. Nat Commun 2021, 12:
3823, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-021-23671-2.
39. Ma I, Westhoff B, van Duijvenvoorde ACK: Uncertainty about
others’ trustworthiness increases during adolescence and
guides social information sampling. Sci Rep 2022, 12:7634,
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-09477-2.
40. Haber SN, Knutson B: The reward circuit: linking primate
anatomy and human imaging. Neuropsychopharmacol. Off.
Publ. Am. Coll. Neuropsychopharmacol. 2010, 35:4–26, https://
doi.org/10.1038/npp.2009.129.
41. van Duijvenvoorde ACK, Peters S, Braams BR, Crone EA: What
motivates adolescents? Neural responses to rewards and
their influence on adolescents’ risk taking, learning, and
cognitive control. Neurosci Biobehav Rev 2016, 70:135–147,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2016.06.037.
42. Knutson B, Huettel SA: The risk matrix. Curr. Opin. Behav. Sci.
2015, 5:141–146, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cobeha.2015.10.012.
43. Mohr PNC, Biele G, Heekeren HR: Neural processing of risk.
J Neurosci 2010, 30:6613–6619, https://doi.org/10.1523/
JNEUROSCI.0003-10.2010.
44. Wu S, Sun S, Camilleri JA, Eickhoff SB, Yu R: Better the devil
you know than the devil you don’t: neural processing of risk
and ambiguity. Neuroimage 2021, 236, 118109, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.neuroimage.2021.118109.
Current Opinion in Psychology 2022, 48:101457
45. Preuschoff K, Bossaerts P: Adding prediction risk to the theory
of reward learning. In Reward decis. Mak. Corticobasal ganglia
netw. Malden: Blackwell Publishing; 2007:135–146.
46. Gilaie-Dotan S, Tymula A, Cooper N, Kable JW, Glimcher PW,
Levy I: Neuroanatomy predicts individual risk attitudes.
J Neurosci 2014, 34:12394–12401, https://doi.org/10.1523/
JNEUROSCI.1600-14.2014.
47. Grubb MA, Tymula A, Gilaie-Dotan S, Glimcher PW, Levy I:
Neuroanatomy accounts for age-related changes in risk
preferences. Nat Commun 2016, 7, 13822, https://doi.org/
10.1038/ncomms13822.
48. Rolls ET, Wan Z, Cheng W, Feng J: Risk-taking in humans and
the medial orbitofrontal cortex reward system. Neuroimage
2022, 249, 118893, https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.neuroimage.2022.118893.
49. Kuhnen CM, Knutson B: The neural basis of financial risk
taking. Neuron 2005, 47:763–770, https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.neuron.2005.08.008.
50. Barkley-Levenson EE, Van Leijenhorst L, Galván A: Behavioral
and neural correlates of loss aversion and risk avoidance in
adolescents and adults. Dev. Cogn. Neurosci. 2012, 3:72–83,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dcn.2012.09.007.
51. Blankenstein NE, Schreuders E, Peper JS, Crone EA, van
* Duijvenvoorde ACK: Individual differences in risk-taking ten-
dencies modulate the neural processing of risky and
ambiguous decision-making in adolescence. Neuroimage
2018, 172:663–673, https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.neuroimage.2018.01.085.
This paper included a broad adolescent age range (8–27) and takes
an individual-difference approach to examine how risk-sensitive brain
regions scale with individual differences in risk sensitivity.
52. Smith AR, Steinberg L, Chein J: The role of the anterior insula
in adolescent decision making. Dev Neurosci 2014, 36:
196–209, https://doi.org/10.1159/000358918.
53. van Duijvenvoorde ACK, Huizenga HM, Somerville LH,
* Delgado MR, Powers A, Weeda WD, Casey BJ, Weber EU,
Figner B: Neural correlates of expected risks and returns in
risky choice across development. J Neurosci 2015, 35:
1549 – 1560, https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1924-
14.2015.
This paper combines computational modelling with fMRI to examine
which brain regions scale parametrically with risk and return sensitivity,
and how these patterns vary with age.
54. Korucuoglu O, Harms MP, Kennedy JT, Golosheykin S,
Astafiev SV, Barch DM, Anokhin AP: Adolescent decision-
making under risk: neural correlates and sex differences.
Cereb. Cortex N. Y. NY 2020, 30:2691–2707, https://doi.org/
10.1093/cercor/bhz269.
55. Kim-Spoon J, Deater-Deckard K, Lauharatanahirun N, Farley J,
Chiu PH, Bickel WK, King-Casas B: Neural interaction between
risk sensitivity and cognitive control predicting health risk
behaviors among late adolescents. J. Res. Adolesc. Off. J.
Soc. Res. Adolesc. 2017, 27:674–682, https://doi.org/10.1111/
jora.12295.
56. Kim-Spoon J, Deater-Deckard K, Brieant A, Lauharatanahirun N,
Lee J, King-Casas B: Brains of a feather flocking together?
Peer and individual neurobehavioral risks for substance use
across adolescence. Dev Psychopathol 2019, 31:1661–1674,
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954579419001056.
57. Maciejewski D, Lauharatanahirun N, Herd T, Lee J, Deater-
Deckard K, King-Casas B, Kim-Spoon J: Neural cognitive con-
trol moderates the association between insular risk
processing and risk-taking behaviors via perceived stress in
adolescents. Dev. Cogn. Neurosci. 2018, 30:150–158, https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.dcn.2018.02.005.
58. Foulkes L, Blakemore S-J: Studying individual differences in
human adolescent brain development. Nat Neurosci 2018, 21:
315–323, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41593-018-0078-4.
59. Bjork JM, Pardini DA: Who are those “risk-taking adoles-
cents”? Individual differences in developmental neuro-
imaging research. Dev. Cogn. Neurosci. 2015, 11:56–64,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dcn.2014.07.008.
www.sciencedirect.com

60. Weber EU: Risk attitude and preference. WIREs Cogn. Sci.
2010, 1:79–88, https://doi.org/10.1002/wcs.5.
61. Weber EU, Milliman RA: Perceived risk attitudes: relating risk
perception to risky choice. Manag Sci 1997, 43:123–144,
https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.43.2.123.
62. Weber EU, Hsee C: Cross-cultural differences in risk
perception, but cross-cultural similarities in attitudes to-
wards perceived risk. Manag Sci 1998, 44:1205–1217, https://
doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.44.9.1205.
63. Kassas B, Morgan SN, Lai JH, Kropp JD, Gao Z: Perception
versus preference: the role of self-assessed risk measures
on individual mitigation behaviors during the COVID-19
pandemic. PLoS One 2021, 16, e0254756, https://doi.org/
10.1371/journal.pone.0254756.
64. Frey R, Duncan S, Weber EU: Towards a typology of risk pref-
erence: four risk profiles describe two thirds of individuals in a
www.sciencedirect.com
Risks and Rewards van Duijvenvoorde et al. 7
large sample of the U.S. population. PsyArXiv; 2020, https://
doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/yjwr9.
65. Becht AI, Mills KL: Modeling individual differences in brain
development. Biol Psychiatr 2020, 88:63–69, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.biopsych.2020.01.027.
66. van Duijvenvoorde ACK, Whitmore LB, Westhoff B, Mills KL:
A methodological perspective on learning in the developing
brain. Npj Sci. Learn. 2022, 7:12, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41539-
022-00127-w.
67. Kievit RA, Brandmaier AM, Ziegler G, van Harmelen A-L, de
Mooij SMM, Moutoussis M, Goodyer IM, Bullmore E, Jones PB,
Fonagy P, Consortium NSPN, Lindenberger U, Dolan RJ:
Developmental cognitive neuroscience using latent change
score models: a tutorial and applications. Dev. Cogn.
Neurosci. 2018, 33:99–117, https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.dcn.2017.11.007.
Current Opinion in Psychology 2022, 48:101457